Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 33

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

AryKun began seven reviews at the same time on August 28 and then went on a wikibreak with six of them still active. Would it be appropriate for someone else to process them or return them to the nominations page?

• Talk:Fishing cat/GA3 (not started)
• Talk:Palaeotherium/GA1 (nominator expressed concern that the review was insufficient)
• Talk:Literature of Botswana/GA1 (nominator responded to the review)
• Talk:Pouyannian mimicry/GA1 (nominator responded to the review)
• Talk:Tiger quoll/GA1 (not started)
• Talk:Evarcha striolata/GA1 (nominator responded to the review)

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I've pinged them on the one they hadn't commented on at all. -- asilvering (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

We can G6 that one (Fishing cat), to return it to the queue. Tiger quoll has conversation but nothing substantive. The others have prose reviews but no source reviews, so if AryKun is unable to complete those they will have to be incremented and returned to the queue. CMD (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering and Chipmunkdavis: It's true that this user has left comments on every review but mine. Kindly let them know that the pages will be G6ed if they do not complete the reviews within the next 24 hours. Thanks, Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's give it until the 28th, a round month since the reviews were opened. CMD (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Literature of Botswana, Pouyannian mimicry, and Evarcha striolata were passed as GA by AryKun on the 23rd (without closing hatnotes). I can try and take over Fishing cat and Tiger quoll. Reconrabbit 19:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit, if you could do Tiger quoll that would be helpful and really kind of you - that review is already in progress. I just pinged again on Fishing cat juuust in case, but since there's nothing there except my pings I think it's fine to just delete that one and someone can get to it during the backlog drive. -- asilvering (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering Hi, just came across this thread. I think that I would see to see the Palaeotherium article review back in queue since I’m unfortunately not confident that it would go well. This is ultimately not up to me, so if you can take further action, I’d appreciate it. Thanks. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@PrimalMustelid, since that review has already started and has substantial comments, we shouldn't be deleting it. You can relist it yourself, however: see WP:GAN/I#N4a for instructions. -- asilvering (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I just double-checked whether this would reset the queue position or not, and it doesn't - so if any of you do this, let me know so I can add the article to the backlog drive list. I won't notice it in the queue otherwise. -- asilvering (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I relisted Palaeotherium for an available GAN slot. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed the Palaeotherium relisting; not only does the page field need to be incremented by 1 in {{GA nominee}}, but the "onreview" (or any other current status) needs to be deleted from after "|status=". I've made a similar fix to Talk:Fishing cat, where the review page was deleted. (Both errors showed up on the WP:GAN page.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @BlueMoonset, I thought the bot would sort that out on its own. -- asilvering (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The aim for this month is to completely eliminate a subset of the GAN backlog: we want all nominations submitted before 1 October 2024 by editors who are relatively new to GA to be out of the queue by 31 October. If you're an editor with fewer than 10 GAs, get those nominations in before October begins! As a stretch goal, we're also going to try to eliminate the backlog of GANs by all nominators who have reviewed more articles than they've nominated. -- asilvering (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I have a few questions related to this if you don't mind;

1. What counts as relatively new?
2. Are there enough "new nominations" to earn any of the higher end awards? (e.g. The Order)
3. Is this backlog drive restricted to those nominations?

λ NegativeMP1 23:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

1. <10 GAs total
2. yes
3. yes.

Right now there are just a handful of example list items on the drive page right now, but a couple of days before it begins I'll put up the full list and we'll be able to see how many we actually have. It won't be fully finalized until the drive actually starts, because I'll have to update the list manually. -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for responding! λ NegativeMP1 23:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: If you need any help with adding articles, I'll be here, just ping me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't think it will take all that long, but if I find it's way more of a bother than I thought, I'll shoot you a ping and we can each take one of the lists. -- asilvering (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vacant0, it wasn't too bad after all. I'll add the last bunch right as we tick over to Oct 1 UTC, but if you'd give the GAN page a quick skim to see if I might have missed any once I do that, that would be great. -- asilvering (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time now, but from a quick look at a few sections, everything appears to be alright. From the history page, I see that the newest addition, Matthew Webb, should be added. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Full list is up! -- asilvering (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Nice. Good job! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

October is also going to be hosting a drive for Women in Green (Sign up here!. If you review an article about women or women's works, feel free to double dip! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The lists are up! They'll be a bit subject to change (anything on the list now that gets a review started before Oct 1 will have to come off, and anything applicable that's submitted before then will have to be added), but it looks like we have 260 articles on our first list, and just under 400 when we add the stretch goal list. We can do this! We can get these backlogged lists completely cleared out! -- asilvering (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/October 2024#Target articles CMD (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I nominated the page 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup for GA on 25 August and User:Vkwiki100 started reviewing it on 1 September 2024. Then, in two days he has gone off-wiki and hasn't returned yet; it's been almost a month now. The GA review has been on hold for a month now, could someone care to takeover or something? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 06:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The review so far is very minimal, if they haven't returned by tomorrow this should go back into the queue for a fresh review. CMD (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I've decided to officially ask for a second opinion on the Tumor necrosis factor GA review (page:Talk:Tumor necrosis factor/GA1 and nominator:@AdeptLearner123) I'm mostly looking for second opinions regarding prose, readability, and broadness. I will also be asking the medicine wikiproject. Feel free to jump in wherever and offer what suggestions you have! IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

IntentionallyDense, it is not necessary to notify this page if you are seeking a second opinion, especially if you have only just changed the status. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I didn’t think it was necessary or anything I just wanted to :) IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm updating my list of GA reviews and nominations, and my numbers aren't adding up with those next to my name on the nomination page. Would anyone know where this data is sourced from? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It's from ChristieBot's database; your statistics are accessible through this link. If I had to guess, either there are entries from before the current system, or some went on to be FAs and are thus not counted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks AirshipJungleman29. I've been able to reconcile my numbers with ChristieBot (well, two seem to have been excluded because they were co-noms, because now I have 112 by my count). Does ChristieBot also have a list of reviews? I'm missing five in my notes.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Nix that, I was looking at the other ChristieBot output I'd been using. Yes, this is much more useful. Thank you.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I checked mine to see if it's a problem elsewhere, and they don't add up either. The GAN stats tool says I have 91 successful promotions with 85 that are still GA. By my count, I've only had 90 successful promotions. Five of those are FA, so 85 is the correct end result. It seems like there's a stray one somewhere that the stats tool thinks was promoted and then demoted, but I'm not aware of any that might have caused this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah. One nomination at that level isn't a big deal, but there may be a malfunction or other issue (or, perhaps more likely, my count is off). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, Chris, glad to see you back editing again; it's been a while. I won't be able to look at the data again until Sunday at the earliest but will see if I can reconcile to your list when I get back. TBUA, I can do the same for you if you have a list I can compare to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, Mike. I managed to reconcile the reviews. I'm going to try the nominations again, because I'm seeing that the bot isn't counting two articles nominated by others (as correct per its programming), so I think I'm missing one.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  Nix that again - I don't have the failed nomination listed on my page, and that's the one off. Thanks for the offer... I should be squared up now! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey all—I just saw an article I've had on my watchlist since its creation, Religion of the Shang dynasty, just got put up for GAN by its primary contributor. Thing is, I'm probably its distant #2 contributor to date, mostly in the form of style, reference, and copyediting. I'd like this to be a GA and the nomination was a bit of a surprise, but I would like to review it if it's not seen as an issue for me to do so. Remsense ‥ 论 14:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

nah i think you're good - if anything, it will mean you can do a more thorough review than someone completely unfamiliar with the topic. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 14:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that reviewers are (or should be) allowed to copyedit the article as necessary so long as it doesn't substantially change the content, so to me it doesn't make a huge difference whether that's during the review or before it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You're really underselling that "distant". I was a bit worried and then took a look at xtools - you're fine. Literal lol. I get more authorship on articles by running iabot. -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say that's at least partially a function of this article having a very particular edit history, such that the numbers would make a minor contribution look like an infinitesimal one. But thanks all in any case! Remsense ‥ 论 18:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I was just wondering if the descriptions in Places subsection is necessary in its currnet form. "This includes countries, states, counties, cities, neighborhoods, and other political designations in Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia and the Pacific, Europe, Middle East, North America, and South America". I don't think there is a need to specify which continents it applies to, especially when it list all of the anywa. I think "This includes countries, states, counties, cities, neighborhoods, and other political designations" would be fine on its own. Alternatively "designations" could be replaced with "subdivisions". Artemis Andromeda (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, an article I nominated (Eugenics in Minnesota) was failed, but I don't believe the reviewer specified truly why it failed. After discussing with Viriditas, I have decided to ask for some more input here. Could anyone tell me why this article was failed and how I can improve it? Cedar Tree 03:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it is very confusing how it was determined what went in the background section and how it was structured. Apart from the "structural" issues referred to by PARAKANYAA, I wouldn't be happy with whole books being used as references without page numbers, such as ref 27. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It's an abstract issue, and it's fairly subjective, so I can see why it would be hard to explain. With how the article is organized, it gives the impression that the Baby Health Contest and the Minnesota Eugenics Society were the entirety of the eugenics movement in Minnesota, with some background info and aftermath thrown in for context. Overall, it looks like the author decided in advance what the article should cover and then sought out sources to add those things. Look at the "Tuition waiver helps Native American students in Minnesota" source, for example. The word "eugenics" doesn't appear once in that source, so it almost certainly doesn't belong in the article. And on the other end, why is Ladd-Taylor (2019) only used once? That looks like the sort of source that should be mined until there's nothing left. I've written about this approach at User:Thebiguglyalien/The source, the whole source, and nothing but the source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the above, I would not pass the article with that lead. It is a very bare summary of the article, and it has two sources, one of which seems unspecific to eugenics in Minnesota. CMD (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Here, a GA reviewer is demanding that copies of print sources are e:mailed to them. There are serious problems with this - articles are not owned by individuals and it cannot be reasonable to expect that any one editor has access to all the references that have been used in the whole history of an article - 20 years in this case. If the GA review process can ask for any print source used in an article to be available to be emailed to a reviewer, no matter who added the source and when it was added, then it is an effective prohibition of offline sources (for example, it would prevent people from using print sources from a library as they would no longer have a copy of it). Of course, there is also the issue of copyright, and whether sending copies of whole magazine articles would be acceptable from a fair use/fair dealing point of view.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You may want to direct the reviewer to WP:RX. Of course, verifiable sources are not required to be easy to access by most standards (WP:SOURCEACCESS). I hesitate to articulate that the "responsibility" is strictly on them to facilitate the verification of the article to their satisfaction, but it's certainly not on you. Remsense ‥ 论 19:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. This is the third venue where this discussion is going on. Please see my comments at Talk:Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma/GA1 so I don't have to repeat them here. RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. Remsense ‥ 论 19:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

(ec) This is not just an issue for article page as the issue won't just effect one article, but all GA and FA reviews (as there is the requirement to check sources), and by extension all articles - because while offline sources are acceptable according to WP:RS, if the review process demands that sources are always availble, than that places that into question. A GA nominator doesn't own an article, and it would be inappropriate if good sources that are used in the article but not available to the nominator (because they were added long before - in the case of the article in question tat least one of the sources was added by me, not the article nominator, in 2008.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

As both a nominator and reviewer, I am ready and willing to send any copy of a source at any time, preferably in plain text, as that is easiest. This is a basic requirement. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree. No article should be failed because the sources are not immediately available to the reviewer. However, if they cannot be made available to the reviewer by any means, we have a failure of WP:V, and that content should not be in the article as it cannot be reasonably verified. -- asilvering (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

it cannot be reasonable to expect that any one editor has access to all the references that have been used in the whole history of an article

@Nigel Ish: On the contrary, it is entirely reasonable. I won't nominate an article if I can't verify all of the sources used, no matter who added them. This is not a serious problem at all, it's how we do things. If you are nominating an article in good faith whose sources you haven't checked out, that's a problem. Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

As noted above, I am not the nominator.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking of you specifically, but of anyone who nominates. Viriditas (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose I should've phrased my comments above a bit more pragmatically: if the reviewer can't verify to their satisfaction, for whatever reason, then they have no reason to pass the review. Remsense ‥ 论 20:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

So the nominator should become WP:OWNer of the article and remove anything that they havn't personally verified? How does that comply with Wikipedia being a collaborative project?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No one is saying that. What people are saying is that it's good practice for the nominator to verify the sources themselves, and that it's perfectly reasonable for the reviewer to require access to the sources to verify the information in the article. If neither reviewer nor nominator have access to a particular source, they should find someone who does, so the information can be verified. -- asilvering (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The idea is that by nominating an article to GA status, you are affirming that it meets the GA criteria. If you cannot confirm the verifiability of non-trivial material in the article, then you really shouldn't be nominating it. Hog Farm _Talk 20:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

This attitude essentially requires the removal of off-line sources from anything in GA, turning it into only the Good Articles of stuff available on the internet now. I don't think this is a good idea. Verifying the material in a source does not always imply the ability to send the source materials to others online without copyright violation. For instance, it may be available only physically as books in libraries. Material of that nature should still be acceptable as a source for GA. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

What? How does it do that? A person can easily verify something available only as a physical book in a library - by going to the library, requesting an interlibrary loan or scan, or by asking the nominator or someone at WP:RX to send a copy of the relevant pages. -- asilvering (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

If material is only available in physical form in libraries, it is unreasonable for reviewers to expect nominators to provide it in electronic form. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

What I was getting at was that there's just as much value in getting something up to as solid of a state as you can without getting the GA badge as there is in GA itself. I can point to several articles I worked on where I felt that GA wasn't in the cards due to various limitations, but I think those are just as good of a contribution as GA. Yes, I understand the shiny badge is a strong motivator, but not everything that gets polished up needs to go through this hoop. You can keep the content in there if you think that it's accurate, without sending the article through GA. Hog Farm _Talk 21:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:GAN/I#R3 bullet 1 says This must include a spot-check of a sample of the sources in the article to verify that each source supports the text in the article that it covers. I'm open to other suggestions for how I should do that. If somebody wants to photocopy the material and mail it to me in the paper mail, that works for me. But I suspect your opposition isn't actually to the "in electronic form" part, but rather in the basic idea of verification. That I can't help you with. RoySmith (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It is fairly trivial to take a photo of a couple of pages in a book and email them to the reviewer if you have access to the book. And it is good practice to keep copies (in paper or electronic form) if you can. It does happen occasionally that you no longer have easy access to a source, but I find it rather unusual for that to be the case for more than one or two of the sources of a fresh GA nominee. —Kusma (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It happened to me for only one article, the GA on Brownie Mary. I backed up many of those old newspaper clippings on a spare hard drive somewhere, but if someone was to ask me right now for an exact copy of a sentence from a source, it would take me some time to find it. This is because when I wrote that article, many of those sources were freely available to everyone on Google News archive, which is now mostly defunct. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Note, on a lark, I decided to track down these sources, and I think I've identified the majority of them on my spare hard drive, encoded in a text file. I would recommend more people do this; in other words, save the sources as text in a backup file. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It has happened to me that accessing a source requires significant time and effort (involving filling out an interlibrary loan request, waiting days or weeks, and then physically accessing the library) that I do not wish to repeat merely to convince a reviewer that I accessed it once already. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that in cases like that, the reviewer should be reasonable and not demand such an effort. But 1) a nominator should have verified all information cited in the article at some point in the article development process, and 2) some form of spot-checking is absolutely necessary, with WP:DCGAR being the result when that goes by the wayside. Hog Farm _Talk 23:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

If the verification process involves somebody to go to a library and look at a physical book, it seems absurd that we should expect that the nominator do that, scan the book in question, and then email it to the reviewer, when the reviewer could just go to the library themselves. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It's 2024 now. Most popular books and periodicals are online and library patrons have access to digital versions in maybe 80% of cases, so this isn't as much of a problem as you are making it out to be. Yes, when we are working on niche topics, this becomes far more difficult. I am currently trying to get a hold of death certificates and old newspaper clippings that have been pretty much lost to time, and I can tell you that it isn't easy. But most people don't have to do that, as we rely on accessible secondary sources for our articles. As it stands right now, 90% of my book browsing is digital, but for Hawaii series by Georgia O'Keeffe, which is currently a GAN as of yesterday, at least three of the books I used for that article do not have digital versions, and I had to go to a physical library to use them. If a reviewer asks to see the material, I will send them a copy in text, as I took cellphone pics of all of the pages as a backup. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, if the reviewer can do that, they should! That's what I usually do when I'm reviewing. But I have an unusually good university library at hand. Most people don't have that, so as a nominator, I'd be expecting to have to provide copies of sources if they needed them. -- asilvering (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

...assuming they live near a library that has the book. Or live in a place where they can find the book at all, for that matter. Editors come from many different places. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 22:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

All editors can access WP:RX, a most amazing place that helps with exactly this. —Kusma (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

But (we hope) the editor who added the source to the article has already obtained access to the source. If the nominator is not that person and has not themselves seen the source... I see no reason to deem it absurd that they take on tracking it down instead of the reviewer. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Nigel Ish should probably steer clear of the GA process until they show they understand it on a basic level; the guidelines re. offline sourcing—as well as policies such as WP:ONUS—are well established, and everyone has to follow them. No one gets a pass by getting the reviewer to do their work for them. RoySmith has experienced this at FAC, I know, as many of us have, and it doesn't matter how experienced one is there: if a reviewer wants a source to confirm source-text integrity, you send it to them. And this isn't something which is slightly weaker at GA just because it's a 'lower' classification of the article: WP:C is a policy with legal implications. Roy was not just within his rights to request offline sources from you; he was mandated to do so by policy (C & V). And all talk about this requirement suddenly creating a form of OWNership is nonsense. It's merely asking the nominator to fulfil their obligations under both policy and project guidelines.

(I'm aware Nigel Ish isn't the nominator of the article in question, but they randomly and as far as I can tell without invitation into a discussion between two others, and then started this thread, which means they must want comments directed to him, rather than the reviewer or nominator.) SerialNumber54129 13:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

As you are banning me from the GA process, I assume that this means that I am banned from any page that is going through the GA process, or presumably has gone through the GA process. It's a shame that no-one informed me about whatever community discussion that banned me. I will bother you no more.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

No-one's banning you, Nigel Ish, certainly not me—I couldn't if I wanted to, and I don't!—I'm merely suggesting that questioning fundamental policies and important guidelines and then tying up loads of editors in a discussion which only leads to you getting told the same thing several times is hardly a productive use of your own or other editors' time and energy. Now take that silly notice of your user page and get on with your work!  :) SerialNumber54129 14:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Nigel Ish, I think everyone is talking past each other here. First, no one said banning until you did, and that's not how banning works on Wikipedia. I don't know whether you actually think there was a "community discussion" or if you're trying to make a point, but that doesn't really matter either way—no ban took place. Second, nominating an article for GA doesn't mean "this article looks good". It means "I've verified that this article meets expectations". If a nominator can't verify the sources, then they shouldn't nominate it. I notice you've never actually participated in the GA process. It's far from perfect, but everyone here with experience on the issue has confirmed that verifying sources during a review isn't the problem that you're claiming it is. I've nominated about a hundred good articles now, and I've never once had this issue. Also, if you think that online sources are inherently lower quality, I suggest you check out WP:LIBRARY and the Internet Archive, among other places. This is where most of the project's experienced content writers (including regular GA nominators) get their sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I have very little to add to this discussion (except to concur with the many wise and thoughtful contributions made by TBUA, SN, Hog Farm, Roy and others), except perhaps a bit of calm and common sense. Whenever I've come across the rather rare situation in which a reviewer has asked for a source and a nominator has said, in good faith, "oh dear, I don't have access to that any more", a solution has been found -- either that particular check isn't too important, the reviewer says "fair enough" and asks for a different one, or that check is important and we have a discussion to see if any additional sources can be found, and make a call on retention/removal based on that. This really doesn't have to be an adversarial or confrontational process unless people choose to make it one. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I have seen an uptick in GAN reviews in which a reminder is given to list the sources that have been checked to see if they verify the information or not. So, I wanted to pre-emptively ask if that's absolutely required, bcs I mostly just check that while reviewing the article itself, without listing the ones I have checked? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Spot checks are required. However, if you just list the ones you check while reviewing the article itself, that will be fine, no need for another step if you're already checking the sources. CMD (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Something is causing ChristieBot to crash on every single run, meaning that nothing will update till it’s fixed. I’m traveling till Sunday with no access to the system so the only way to get it to run is going to be to find the offending nomination template (which is almost certainly what is causing the issue). Whatever the edit was that caused the problem appears to have been made at around 12:00 noon US Eastern time. Usually it’s caused by omitting or misformatting a parameter or parameter value. I have code to catch all the cases I know about but this must be something new. Sorry about this but I can’t even help look at the moment as I’ll be in a car for hours yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Should we be looking at the templates in the GAN lists, on the individual GAN pages, or on the article talk pages themselves? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The templates on the article talk pages, I would expect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Mike Christie, it looks like the bot wasn't running all the way through significantly earlier than that. The last run that affected the WP:GAN page was at 00:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC); the next run where ChristieBot made some edits was at 03:43, when it was working on the just-opened Talk:Sleeping Beauty (1959 film)/GA3: it made three edits, to the review page, article talk page, and nominator's talk page, but never updated WP:GAN. (I didn't see anything on that review page or talk page that appeared likely to break anything.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It really isn't ideal that so much of the GAN process is based around a single point of failure. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Which reminds me of one person who might be able to help. SD0001, if you have a moment would you look at the tail of christiebot-gan.err on Toolforge? The last error might well be me mishandling an exception, but before that it might identify what it was processing before it crashed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like this is resolved from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Can someone not a maintainer read a file on toolforge?. I have been at an event myself and am only seeing this now. – SD0001 (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it’s fixed — I didn’t realize till after I’d pinged you that someone else might be able to look at the logs for me. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

So I did a search through Talk namespace, for pages with {{GA nominee}} on them, sorted by latest edits. Scrolled down to "Ianto's Shrine" (one of the last pages bot processed on WP:GAN) and went up. One of the next pages is Talk:Holzwarth gas turbine, where an editor failed the nomination, then reverted the edit and put it on hold instead. But the bot already processed the fail. Could that be it? AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 02:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I added a signature to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Green Lantern (film)/1, which was added to GAN during Christiebot's last edit there. CMD (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm still receiving the failure emails every twenty minutes, so whatever is causing the crash is still in place. AstonishingTunesAdmirer, the list you created is exactly what I would have thought would find the error, whatever it is, but I've just looked at every article edited since the time in question and can't see any errors in those templates. BlueMoonset, that's a good point; I'll look a bit further back. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I've looked at earlier pages and can't see an issue anywhere. I've posted a note on WP:VPT asking if anyone can read the log file to identify the troublesome page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The bot is running again, thanks to Hawkeye7, who posted the errors for me to review at VPT. The issue was triggered by edits to Talk:Holzwarth gas turbine reversing a fail and changing it to a hold; when that happens the bot records an error, because the page now has an active template for a review page that the bot thought was inactive because of the fail. That's not particularly rare, but in this case the previous error on the error page User talk:ChristieBot/Bug messages was to record that the bot couldn't write to a page because that page had the {{bots}} template on it, which forbids bots from writing to a page. That template was included in the error message, so the attempt to write the new error failed because the bug message page now had the {{bots}} template too. I've removed the old error message from the bug messages page, so the bot can now run.

The proper fix is for me to change the bot so that when it records the error it doesn't include the {{bots}} template as part of the message. I won't be able to do that till next week, so in the unlikely event that the bot tries to write to another page protected by {{bots}}, it will start crashing again the next time after that that it writes an error. Clearing the bug messages page will resolve it again. I'll post another note here when I've updated the bot to address this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou Mike for getting this sorted and for all your work with ChristieBot. Hope your travels go well. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe this is now fixed; the next time the bot runs into a page with the {{bots}} template it should quote the template in its internal error message, rather than transcluding it. No way to tell for sure it's fixed till the next time it happens, but I'll keep an eye on it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi folks,

There are 197 articles left in the first list for this month's backlog drive (we started with 271). That means we're on track to finish the whole list by the end of the month! If you haven't joined in yet, feel free to do so at any time. -- asilvering (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I had nominated Boyd Exell for GA about 4 months ago; my first ever request. One of the October 2024 backlog drive participants took it up, however I felt like they were fighting with me, were non-responsive, and not cooperative. The reviewer failed the review, but I feel they have several misunderstandings about Wikipedia guidelines in general that they were incorrectly operating on during the process. For example, the reviewer:

1. insisted I violate MOS:US; (that set the wrong tone right at the beginning)
2. insisted I use his example from essay WP:INTERVIEWS, which he misunderstands, and he would not answer my questions about it; (I had to locate the source of his 'Joe Film' example using an insource search because reviewer didn't provide it, and reading it is when I discovered he misunderstands the purpose behind the 'Joe Film' example)
3. misunderstands a watermark issue of an image which the photographer specifically gave permission to use and crop for this article, and which has been reviewed, accepted and noted in WikiCommons by another editor. The reviewer's issue seems to be about a cropped-out copyright watermark from the original image and deems that unfixable and causes the review to fail. The reviewer doesn't understand why a professional photographer would upload their images to Flickr with copyright watermarks and later change the license to 'share';
4. closed out the review just 12 hours after my last edit. (I had planned on working on it tonight)

I am unsure how to proceed from here. I will not 'fix' issues reviewer has now left 'documented' on the article talk page — because they are, frankly, wrong (hindering renomination). And I am not willing to continue to work with that reviewer at this point. But I wanted to document this negative experience and see if there is any chance someone else might look at Talk:Boyd Exell/GA1 to see if I'm interpreting this correctly, and offer direction on how I might proceed from here.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• If you do not believe that the issues raised by the reviewer are valid (and having quickly read through the review, I'm inclined to agree with you), there's nothing to stop you from immediately renominating the article. If the previous reviewer's objections aren't problems, a subsequent reviewer shouldn't hold them against you. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't love that the solution to "someone pushed me out of the queue" is to be sent to the back of the queue and hope the pushing stops on its own. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the ideal is extending 2O to articles that have been failed. Hauling someone to WT:GAN every time or accepting another 6 month wait is too much. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Alexeyevitch should be reviewing at this time. They take a very narrow, binary approach to a process that isn't necessary black and white. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

He just failed a second review, this time Izhorian Museum, claiming that it doesn’t meet RS guidelines without explaining how or why. Also the user is wrong about using local media sources yet keeps repeating this claim. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It was a short review, and it does seem many concerns raised go past what is required for WP:GACR, even if they were correct. I would encourage you to do the work you planned to do, and other work you may consider useful, and renominate. As an aside, I would not pass the article with the current WP:lead, which does not seem to be written as a summary of the body. CMD (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I cannot glean from the reviewer's comments that they were fighting with [you], but cannot say the reverse. Your replies were unnecessarily hostile. For example, [n]o, abbreviations DO NOT TYPICALLY require periods, especially for "US" and "UK". See MOS:US! is an excessive way to correct someone, especially after they have acknowledged uncertainty on the matter. It would have been sufficient to just link to the relevant MOS section without all-caps yelling, and exclamation marking the link. If you disagree with the review – and like Caeciliusinhorto, I too am inclined to agree – then simply renominate the article with or without alteration and another reviewer can pick it up. But please, temper your demeanor. Reviewers are volunteers too. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the various advices. I have decided to renominate it for GA, and I hope it can be re-added to the October drive under "Articles by new nominators (<10 GAs)" to give it a chance to get picked up by another reviewer.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I've added it back to the list where it was. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, PMC.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I have conducted a split of Monarchs into "Monarchs" (177 articles) and "Monarchs - Europe" (204 articles). Editors are invited to check my work to ensure articles are in the correct category. Any help splitting categories larger than 300 articles would also be appreciated: the GA talk archives have previous discussions on this topic and can be a helpful place to find how the community wants to split the large categories. Z1720 (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Someone had requested for the article name to be more specific so I moved the page and now the bot failed the review; ops. How to proceed? The Blue Rider 00:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The Blue Rider, the article was moved back, so things should be fine going forward. For future reference, if you move the article to a new name, you will need to separately move the GA review page to reflect that new article name, and also adjust the name of the GA review page—or is it the article name?—given in the top couple of lines of the GA review page (I believe there are two instances of it there). BlueMoonset (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I accidently got confused by two similar articles and started the GAN review of the larger instead of the smaller one as I intended. Can someone fix it and remove me as reviewer? Article is Model (art). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Tagged for G7. Best, CMD (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey all. I'm currently reviewing the article on Fiona, which is about a given name. It includes sections about its etymology and historical popularity, as well as a list of notable people with the name. I had assumed when reviewing it that the list section should be considered effectively as a disambiguation section, and thus shouldn't require citations to reliable sources like the prose sections (per WP:APOENTRIES). However, I notice that Voorts (talk · contribs) recently quick-failed a review for the article on Tamara (given name), in part because it didn't include citations for its list of names (alongside other issues). Could somebody else comment on this? Should we require citations for every entry in a list section for given name articles? Or should we treat them functionally as disambiguation sections, and thus not require citations? --Grnrchst (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:GACR#2b requires that "All content that could reasonably be challenged ... must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph". I'm not sure what content could be reasonably challenged here: is it really reasonable to ask for a reliable source demonstrating that Fiona Bruce's name is Fiona? (I would question the inclusion of Fionna Campbell: is "Fionna" the same name as "Fiona"? Other people with names related to "Fiona" aren't included in the list) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not what sourcing was needed for in that article. If it's purely a list of names with no other information, I agree no citations are needed. But when you start adding birth dates, occupations, etc., citations are needed, especially for living people. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't think a brief description of occupations ("Tamara Adrián, Venezuelan politician" is the first entry in Tamara (given name)#Notable people with the given name; "Fiona Adams, British photographer" is the first in Fiona#Notable people with the given name) is really "content that could reasonably be challenged". I would have said that I was pretty hawkish on including inline citations, and I wouldn't even have considered that it might be needed in this case. But maybe I'm wildly out of step with current GA norms? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

No, that would be wild. If we would have any claims in the list captions that diverge from short descriptions or lead sections of the linked articles, that would need citations, but clerical info that is just copied and pasted from there - or even worse transcluded with the use of {{anbl}} - would just introduce citation overkill in the list article. --Joy (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel it'd be very silly to require citations for the disambiguation portion of the page; I concur with Grnrchst's point that they don't require citations in normal dab pages. We don't need citations for the short description of pages in a "see also", after all. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Set Index Articles are an odd set and not really what the GACR was designed for. The Wikipedia:Set index articles guideline states that "List items do not require citations if they only give information provided by the source(s) cited in the introduction to the list. If an item gives more information, that should be backed up by citations." My read on that for this article would be that names do not need to be sourced, but biographical (or other) details do. CMD (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Would biographical details even as simple as birth/death years, nationalities and professions (i.e. what are usually in short description) require citations? --Grnrchst (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Given how unsimple nationality can be, I would cite that. As for everything else, I don't have much experience with SIAs, so I'm working with the guideline as written. I would be interested if anyone knew of discussions that led to that guideline formulation. CMD (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

A huge amount of nationality listings are very simple and uncontroversial, we should cite them only if they are in actual dispute, evidenced by the lead sections of same articles doing the same. If the linked article doesn't make a mountain out of a molehill, neither should a list. --Joy (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that such lists should be spun off into their own disambiguation page if they aren't already; there will be hundreds of articles on people with the first name Fiona, and it makes no sense to lump them into an article about the name so that everything else is conpletely overshadowed. If the list on the page itself isn't comprehensive, you need some sort of source for selection criteria anyway. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Another option would be to use {{Annotated link}} in such a list, relying on the {{Short description}} in each article to provide the extra text without citation.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀

IMO a more pressing reason to require that article to be fixed based on WP:V would be the laundry list of 'related names' in the infobox. People spam those infoboxes with lists of names that usually seem relevant, but if we're talking good article standard, these should definitely be backed up by citations and not be WP:OR hotspots. --Joy (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. My article Susanne Craig is going through a review. The editor and I have clashing editing styles and their comments, which I believe I have worked on, are being left in a confusing manner. Was wanting a second opinion to see how this article can move forward. Lisha2037 (talk) 06:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

For context, this is continued from Wikipedia:Teahouse#Good Article Editor. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am the reviewer for the GAN. Honestly, I'm going to suggest that nobody bother to read Talk:Susanne Craig/GA1 because it's just too much of a mess. The nominator says it's confusing, the reviewer (myself) says it's confusing, and there's no reason to subject another editor to that confusion and waste their time. It's just not a good use of volunteer time. (To be clear, I am not requesting a second opinion.)

I'm not going to point fingers or compare achievements at GAN. We got into this mess together and it is what it is. I feel that it would be easier to start a new review than to attempt a second opinion on this one, assuming that (1) the nomination does not pass in the next couple days and (2) someone is willing to nominate it again. (I'll briefly mention that two of the GANs I failed in the past I ultimately and successfully took to GA myself, so that's a possibility.)

I suppose this will probably make a couple editors curious enough to look at the review. If anyone cares to dissect it, I stand by my work and am open to constructive criticism. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien are you able to see what I can do? Lisha2037 (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Reidgreg I still want a second opinion on this, even if it’s confusing. The editor is still able to go through the article like a normal editor would and check if it meets the criteria for a GA. They don’t even have to look at your comments which many have already pointed out to me are excessive at points (I am new here so I may not directly realize when an editor is being intense) Lisha2037 (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

From your comments, edit summaries, etc., I don't think you want me to have a second opinion. It seems to me that what you're asking for is a new reviewer. (eg: your double revert to the GA nominee template with the edit summary "Well then I want you off this review.") To get a new reviewer, you need a new review. At least I believe that's how it works. I can't close the review without giving you a fair amount of time to make changes to meet the GA criteria. However, you can request that I fail the review, in which case I can close it right away and you can renominate it and get a new reviewer. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Reidgreg A second opinion template means another editor looks at the nomination. It’s not a second opinion from you. Lisha2037 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah. To clarify: I don't think you want me to be provided with a second opinion. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Reidgreg Is your concern keeping the two reviews seperate? I've incremented the review, so that the next editor's review will be on a separate page.[1] @Lisha2037: This will keep the article's place in line at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Good luck with the next review, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rjjiii So so since it’s failed, I’ve re added the template to the article. I hope that’s how it gets nominated again. Lisha2037 (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted that edit. It's already done. Hopefully you won't need it in the future, but the instructions are at WP:GAN/I#N4a. It comes up most often when an editor starts a review but has something come up in the real world that limits their time, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:GAN/I#N4a applies to abandoned reviews. I have not abandoned the review. I am waiting for the nominator to respond to unanswered comments, per the last sentence of my last statement on the review page. Having the nominator turn that around and say that they're waiting for me... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I note that following a double-revert and improper edits to the GA nominee template, the nominator has now blanked Talk:Susanne Craig/GA1. Could someone please talk to the nominator about WP:Disruptive editing. The nominator is not inclined to listen to me about it. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I have re-instated the contents of the review. Blanking was not an appropriate course of action. The least confrontational path from here is for both reviewer and nominator to disengage from each other. It is clear that Lisha2037 wants a new reviewer. It appears that a source review of all sources was conducted, which is well above and beyond what is required of a reviewer. You only need to spot-check a sample of the sources (~10% seems to be standard). This isn't a criticism of the effort, but if an article has hundreds of cites, it'd be a herculean demand of the reviewer to access and review all of those sources. That source review is what gives the appearance that the review is "intense". The mark-up doesn't help. The other elements of the review appear to me to be standard. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

One additional aside, because it is bothering me. You can safely ignore pigsonthewings demand that you sign every single line of your review. That is not how editors conduct reviews. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I have not requested a second opinion, withdrawn as reviewer, passed nor failed the review. Talk:Susanne Craig/GA1 should still be open. Incrementing the GA nominee template is premature. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Reidgreg, I think it would be easier if you failed the review at this point. From the comments above you are not ready to pass it and the nominator doesn't want to work with you, so it isn't going to pass. If you revert the blanking and fail it then the next nomination can be picked up by whoever wishes to review it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that it would be easier to fail it. But it would be premature for me to do that. The review has only been open for 5 days, which is too soon for a non-quickfail fail (WP:GAN/I#HOLD suggests 7 days). The only way I can fail it now is for the nominator to formally request I fail it. Once again, I'm waiting on the nominator. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It is entirely up to you to fail it; you definitely don't need the nominator to agree or even comment. The GA process places the responsibility for the decision solely on the nominator. I'm not saying you have to fail it, but you certainly aren't prevented from doing so by not hearing from the nominator. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that support. But I'm a stickler for the rules and will keep it on hold for a while longer, barring a nominator request. I stand by my record and I want to be able to honestly say that I gave the nominator every chance. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no rule against failing an article if it doesn't meet the criteria, the putting an article on hold is an option, and the suggested timeframe is an option within that. CMD (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

We're making this more difficult than it needs to be. Lisha2037, would you like to fail the nomination so a new reviewer can take it? I'll do it myself; I'm already looking for women's biographies to review for this month's WP:Women in Green event (I recommend you join if you're interested in this topic area, it's a great little community). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien yes I have repeatedly mentioned that to the editor. I want this article re-reviewed. I have worked on all the comments and yet he says please work on them as if to keep prolonging the process. If you jump in I will provide a full summary to everything I have edited section by section to make it easier to grasp.

Also what’s crazy is that I did get a notification that’s it’s been failed and then I checked an hour later and it was back up so I’m not exactly sure what happened or if he’s just wanting to keep the article to himself. Lisha2037 (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

All right. Reidgreg, if you insist on failing it yourself, then you can add Template:FailedGA to the talk page. Otherwise I or someone else will get around to doing it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: You see what's happening above? I'm all for being kind to newcomers but competency is required. This could be over with three words from the nominator but for some reason, even when prompted, they can't manage to type them. I put up with this throughout the review. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I know it's tempting to be snippy about an editor that you are in a dispute with, but it's not a great look even if you are absolutely in the right. It's especially not a great look if you are being snarky about their inability to do something twenty minutes after they did that thing. Indeed, in this very thread they had already said, in answer to the question "would you like to fail the nomination so a new reviewer can take it?", yes I have repeatedly mentioned that to the editor. I want this article re-reviewed. It is hard to see how you could not have understood that to be a request for you to fail the review.

It was very clear that Lisha2037 wanted you to fail the review. Forcing them to use some specific wording out of some misplaced adherence to a non-existent procedure doesn't do anything productive. Neither claiming that you are unable to fail a GA nomination within seven days unless the nominator asks for it (which is not a rule), nor claiming that they have not done something at least twenty minutes after they in fact did so, even under the most mindlessly bureaucratic interpretation, makes it seem as though the competence issue lies with them. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien the article looks like it’s on the nomination board (so not on hold) - I am new to this so I may be wrong but I think it’s open to have another editor pick this up. And yes I have heard of that project! Will contribute more once I have more experience as I am still learning. Lisha2037 (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Lisha2037, I've temporarily removed your new nomination; either Reidgreg or someone else is going to mark the first GA review as a fail shortly, and I don't want the bot to get confused about what's going on. I'm not sure what it will do if it tries to process a failure while another nomination is still open, but I don't want to find out. I'll readd your nomination very shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, the nominator finally requested a fail. I'll write up a close, but I'm going to have to take my time to keep it clean. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If tone is going to be an issue, then I'd encourage you to close without comment. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking forward to your review. @Thebiguglyalien Lisha2037 (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I have split the "Cue sports" section into "Cue sports events and concepts" and "Cue sports people". Please review my work to ensure that everything is placed where its supposed to be.

In this section, there are articles that are media about cue sports: The Color of Money, The Hustler and Jimmy White's 2: Cueball. Should these be listed here, or moved to their media section? Z1720 (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

asilvering, this strikes me as an ideal candidate for the backlog drive, despite the fact that a review is open, because it badly needs a reviewer: the original reviewer hasn't been back since their last post on June 22 despite being pinged and as far as I can tell, it's the nominator's first GAN. Can there be an arrangement for backlog drive credit for whoever takes it over? It would be a shame if a review abandoned for over three months couldn't be taken over and completed in the two weeks remaining in the drive. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll add it to the list, with a note. -- asilvering (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I just came across two GA reviews, from this month and July, that did not have spot checks. Is the proper procedure here to list the articles for GAR? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, no comment on the specific GAs, but I feel the messaging that we have to do spot checks now has not been made very clear to people who don't do a lot of GAs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Despite this being raised a few times in the last few years, the reviewing instructions still skip over the actual reviewing part of reviewing. Ironically, the spot check is the only part of the review process that is mentioned. I maintain that we need an overhaul of the "how to review" aspect, but my starting point is still gathering dust. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts both of those were my reviews, so I'll just clarify that admittedly I entirely forgot to add the spot-check when reviewing these. I will at least verify that the sourcing information on the articles was accurate from the sources I looked at in-depth during the other parts of the review process (For both Delibird and Geno I had to double check that several sources were reliable or not, or if they were verifying the correct content or not, for various reasons, and I saw no outward issues with sourcing when giving the article an overview.)

I'll do some retroactive spot-checks later for verifiability's sake, and I'll coordinate with the nominator of both of the reviews (@Captain Galaxy) if I notice anything amiss. Preferably I'd appreciate if I could just handle this editorially with the nom so we don't have to go through the lengthy GAR process, especially since the nom is not at fault here, and I wouldn't want to put them through that due to a mistake on my part. It's an easy enough mistake to rectify, so I'd appreciate if this could be handled in a less complicated manner than what has been suggested. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

If you looked at sources in-depth to check whether they verified the content, isn't that a spot check? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien In a sense. I just forgot to actually put down the formal process and directly tell them which sources I had looked at and verified. I am not sure if that qualifies or not, especially since it's not down on record. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

If you write down which sources you looked at in-depth, that meets the requirements (assuming they did!) and there isn't a need to do more retroactively. CMD (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. I have no issues with fixing this outside the GAR process. I probably should have pinged you both as well; my bad for not doing so. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

There are thirty-five simultaneous admin elections going on in a new format. The idea is to have a discussion that does not include supports and opposes, but which simply presents information about the candidate for people to draw their own conclusions from. I thought it might be a useful contribution to add notes about GAN & FAC participation, and have done so with one candidate, here. Since there are thirty-five, it would be great if two or three others would chip in with comments on other admins on the list. I'll commit to doing the first five, tonight if I have time, and will try to get more done over the next couple of days. The discussion phase only lasts three days, so if this is helpful it should be done quickly. If anyone else is interested, please say so here and indicate which ones you'll add the notes for to avoid duplication of effort. No problem if it doesn't get done, but I think looking at how an editor behaves in content reviews, both as reviewer and nominator, can reveal what kind of person they are, and could be useful to those considering whether to support or oppose each candidate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this, @Mike Christie! This is such a huge help. -- asilvering (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

And since several have no activity, it's quicker than I was afraid it would be. I'll keep going down the list; if someone wants to chip in and help please post here to say which ones you're doing, but I might even be able to get through the list. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Robert McClenon
•  Done SD0001
•  Done Peaceray

ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I've only got half a dozen left to do so I think we're there now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

All now done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Great! I admittedly got waylaid reading a few reviews to help me get to know the GAN process better. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you both for doing that! was helpful in my voting (although i don't think it changed any of my votes)! :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

+1 Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Arrangement of lines/GA1 was started by User:Electrou over a week ago with a two-sentence "review" with no depth, detail, or source checking, and no action to change the actual nomination status of the article. The reviewer is apparently a very new Wikipedia editor. I pinged the reviewer and suggested mentorship, several days later, but have received no response and their only edit after the ping was to claim to go on wikibreak for a week (an odd thing for a brand-new editor to know how to do, but whatever). This nomination is over nine months old; it was, until Electrou picked it up, one of the five oldest unreviewed nominations, and is in the stretch goals for the current reviewing drive, but I am concerned that the outcome of this non-review will be to put it back in the pool after the drive is over and let it continue to languish. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've been out of the loop for too long to say if it's couth to consider the review a non-review, but I know as a lay person, I had questions about the comprehensiveness of the lede as well as some of the phrasing ("intuitively") and the fact that the first reference doesn't show up until the fifth paragraph (counting the three in the block). So yes, I agree that this definitely needs a review that looks at the article vis-a-vis the GA criteria. That being said, I felt my eyes glazing over before I reached the end of the discussion of the planes, so I wouldn't be competent to give a review if a new review became needed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! This is already more useful for improvement than the review. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m willing to take over the review if no one more competent than me can (i’m not great at math stuff) IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's my first review, anything can be better, and I went on a wikibreak due to rapid edit conflicts. I'll give a more detailed review later. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

To be blunt: it is not merely a case of "could be better": this review clearly paid no heed to our norms or explicit written guidelines for GAN reviews. An attempt was not properly made. Remsense ‥ 论 18:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein What did you just say! You called me a "new editor". Excuse me, I have 500+ edits, I took wikibreak due to rapid edit conflicts. I even gave you the response, look at the message above. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You are inexperienced by GAN standards, and given your apparent ignorance of those standards, this characterization is what you probably want, rather than the alternative being "experienced but clearly negligent". Remsense ‥ 论 18:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It appears I didn't read the GA standards. I'm just not very good at reviewing, trying to get help Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Before any of this continues, I'd like to drop a quick reminder of WP:BITE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

If they claim themselves not to be a new editor, I would presume they would like to hear an unvarnished appraisal of their conduct. Remsense ‥ 论 18:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

With an account only two months old and only 462 edits in mainspace, I would like to gently advise Electrou that they are, indeed, very new and inexperienced by Wikipedia standards, and would do well to thoroughly read and understand the guidelines for any focused activity here, whether that be reviewing GA nominations or requesting advanced permissions. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh shut up, I have 855+ edits it we count all namespaces, I'll thoroughly review the policies and guidelines. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

For your first reading assignment: never speak to another editor like that ever again. I'm not an administrator, but I wouldn't blame any admin who blocked you the next time you told another editor to "shut up". Remsense ‥ 论 02:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense bro I'm not reading a very long policy Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Then stop wasting everyone else's time pretending you want to improve. You do not. Remsense ‥ 论 11:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense bro what does that even mean Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I genuinely do hope things go well and you get advice that helps you, but the things I am saying do not seem to be helping, so I'm disengaging from this conversation. Remsense ‥ 论 11:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I got a new message on my talk page saying to AGF (assume good faith). Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

civility is one of our 5 pillars and it is expected that all editors, new or not, understand and adhere to it. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 11:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

462 edits is better than the average newcomer Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Per the link to policy above: experienced editors are trying in good faith to give you advice. You need to change your attitude considerably: stop arguing with them as if you would know better or as if you have some impressive reputation you have to defend—you do not. Remsense ‥ 论 02:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense bro, have you read the good faith policy or it's related policies, the reason why I said "shut up" is because they called me "very new", but I have 855 total edits and 462 mainspace edits. That's literally better than the average newcomer with 10 edits. Do you actually understand who is a newcomer and who isn't? A newcomer is an editor with 10 edits (autoconfirmed). Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Electrou, while you are indeed past the threshold of "new" used to identify autoconfirmed editors, 462 mainspace edits does not mean that you are a seasoned and experienced editor with a firm grasp of Wikipedia and Wikimedia policies, guidelines, and manuals of style. When choosing to review articles at the GA level, at least a basic understanding of the expectations should be shown.

Also, Remsense is correct that your decision to tell another editor to "shut up" is unconstructive; people are trying to advise you, help you learn, and you are rebuffing them in a manner that will only cause offense and alienate them. Continued personal attacks and combative behaviour could readily lead to a block. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Bro, have you read the civility policy that Remsense helpfully pointed out to you? And sure, you have made more edits than most casual visitors to Wikipedia ever make, but constantly showing off your edit count, especially in a discussion that's supposed to be about improving article quality, is giving the rest of us a poor impression of you. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I hope you reconsider and take my advice above: frankly, I would expect a block sooner rather than later if you continue with your present attitude, and there's no use in me mincing words about that. Remsense ‥ 论 11:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

R.I.P. Now I'm going to get blocked (just a chance). Atleast most of them are only for a few days (like 2). And editors are giving me advice, so the more I listen to it, the less chance of getting blocked. I'll try to thoroughly review the policies and guidelines. Sorry for the rude "shut up". Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like I have started a conflict, or possibly a war. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

A minor scuffle and in any case not really something to be proud of. Now how about that in-depth review? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

If the reviewer does not review the article (seems like they are on a wiki-break), I am willing (and would like) to take it up for review too, as part of the backlog drive. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that as nominator I should be approving takeover reviewers, but I'd be happy to have any willing reviewer give the article a proper review. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was asking in general if a new review could be started, as it seems this conversation fizzled out. I should have edited in-source instead of clicking reply. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oh, sorry DoctorWhoFan91, I didn't see that you had already volunteered. I just dropped some comments. If you feel more comfortable with the math aspect, please do feel free to take over.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  No, you're doing great, and I was only gonna do it in a few days if the review became available, so you're also better on the aspect of time, feel free to continue. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Alright, sounds good. Thanks! - and do feel free to comment if you see anything someone with a better grasp of maths might catch. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Generally. I know most people don't care, but I do, haha PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Just make sure you change the location of the link at WP:GA too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The reviewer for one of my GANs, was started by an editor (am I supposed to ping them here?) more than 2 weeks ago, and there has been no further reviewing actions from their side for almost a week (and the prev two times they suggested changes was also a week apart). And they have also barely responding to my queries about the progress, answering vaguely. I think they might be too busy to complete the review, and unwilling to step back. Can something be done about it, bcs the GAN backlog drive is ending, and in case the GAN is readded to the list/the review gets completed, it might get reviewed properly more promptly. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like they replied and said they were going to do it. If DaniloDaysOfOurLives decides to drop it, however, I would be happy to take it on. Let me know. Viriditas (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean "not responding"? The last time they replied was yesterday! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jeopardy!/2, TenPoundHammer argues that the "Gameplay" section of articles such as Jeopardy! or Wheel of Fortune (American game show) are equivalent to a plot summary and can thus be uncited per WP:PLOTREF. I don't believe that factual elements of gameplay can be governed by the writing about fiction guideline, and that the section needs citations. Opinions from others would be helpful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

A better guideline for this would be MOS:TVPLOT, especially the last paragraph:

For non-fiction series, such as talk shows, game shows, news programming or reality shows, a "plot summary" may be interpreted as an outline of the show's format or gameplay rules; in such cases, the heading may be changed to "Format" or "Gameplay" as appropriate. This will likely be enough for news programming or talk shows. However, some non-scripted reality series may require summaries similar to scripted series, in which case they should follow the guidelines above.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course, MOS:TVPLOT says Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, such as its credits, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given. Exceptions to this include lost episodes (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors are required to use secondary sources. Any content that is analytical, interpretive or evaluative should not be in the plot summary, unless it is necessary to clarify an unclear or contentious plot point, in which case it must be accompanied by a secondary source. So the question is to what extent the 3000-word long(!) §Gameplay section of Jeopardy! is a "basic description" verifiable from watching the show. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to drop in and say that I think the bonus point system (2500 words=1 point) is way better than the bonus system used in the July 2024 drive (.5 points for every 2000 words in a single article), and I would be supportive of it being the system used in future drives. Kimikel (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, @Kimikel! I like it a lot better too. We'll have to see what other people think once when we debrief the experiment. -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

So The Bill was listed as a Good Article Reassessment. An editor was literally in the article today to address the issues raised when someone just delisted it and closed the GAR before they'd had the chance to post what they'd done.

Are you able to list it again and reopen the discussion? It was delisted literally as we were removing the information it was nominated for including and also adding sources!

We didn't think it would just be delisted as nobody had voted whether to keep or delist it. If I'm honest i thought the nominator had abandoned it! 5 albert square (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'll reopen it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@5 albert square: and also GAR watchers: If nobody comments in the GAR, I assume that no one is interested in fixing up the article and do not include additional comments. I cannot comment on whether GAR closers look at the article history. It helps immensely if editors who are interested in fixing up the article post their intentions in the GAR. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)